Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Apprenticeship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House hearing on HB588 would expand public-works apprenticeship contributions; industry voices split
Summary
Representative Garrett introduced House Bill 588 to remove the statutory exemption for many road, bridge, utility and maintenance public-works contracts from the Public Works Apprentice and Training Act, requiring contractors to participate in an apprenticeship system or contribute to the PWAT fund.
Representative Garrett introduced House Bill 588, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice and Training Act to remove an exemption that currently excludes many street, highway, bridge, road, utility and maintenance contracts from the requirement that public-works contractors either (1) have a registered apprenticeship program, (2) pay contributions to an established apprenticeship fund, or (3) contribute to an existing apprenticeship program.
Secretary Sarita Nair (Department of Workforce Solutions) and Matthew Suarez of the Western States Carpenters described the state—s expanded focus on registered apprenticeship programs. Testimony noted growth in registered programs (from 41 to 58 programs since 2021), the PWAT fund distributions, and federal support for apprenticeships tied to infrastructure funding. The sponsor and supporters said the bill keeps public dollars local, develops a trained workforce for road projects and rural communities, and strengthens career pathways.
Multiple construction-industry representatives opposed or raised concerns. Contractors and industry associations said heavy-highway and utility contractors already run well-established, federally approved training programs (TTCP and similar programs) tailored to highway projects and that a 60¢ per-hour contribution (the rate set in current statute) applied to reported labor hours could increase costs for projects on tight, fixed-price maintenance contracts and for small specialized firms (striping, guardrail, etc.). Several witnesses said the federal TTCP and existing trainings meet inspectors— and FHWA standards, and some contractors argued the public-works apprenticeship fund is oriented toward vertical construction and may not benefit highway contractors.
Testimony referenced the fiscal information report (FIR) estimating that applying a 60¢ contribution to New Mexico DOT labor hours (1.6–1.8 million hours in recent fiscal years) would yield $983,000 to $1.1 million in annual contributions if every hour were covered. Several witnesses and committee members noted that companies with registered apprenticeship programs would not pay the 60¢ contribution because they would qualify as having their own program; that fact changes the net fiscal effect depending on how many firms convert existing in-house training to registered apprenticeship programs.
Committee members asked implementation and compliance questions: how long it takes to stand up a registered apprenticeship, whether contractors— in-house training would qualify, whether the department would withhold or stop work on noncompliant projects, and why the statutory exemption existed originally. Secretary Nair and Department of Transportation staff said apprenticeship registrations can be expedited, that in-house training can be converted to registered apprenticeship programs, and that the state typically pursues compliance through audits and follow-up rather than preemptive project halts. Several members expressed support for apprenticeships but worry about passing costs to local governments and small contractors on fixed-price projects.
No committee vote on HB588 appears in the transcript segment provided. The hearing record contains pro and con testimony and technical questions for follow-up by the Department of Workforce Solutions and DOT about compliance, fund distribution and how the exemption previously came to be.
